# For all of those in Southern Md that have no clue how to get through a crossover



## DQ2B

For the life of me I don't know where so many people got the notion that you should enter a crossover on the left!!! Please stop. See diagram. And for God's sake if there is already a car in the crossover and you are behind, don't go into the crossover and pull up on their left!!! It's just stupid.


----------



## vraiblonde

You'd think common sense would ....

Oh...wait...

What I hate is when someone is already in the wrong spot, so I go in the wrong spot because of that, and they go, but I'll still sitting there looking like the nozzle.


----------



## BernieP

DQ2B said:


> For the life of me I don't know where so many people got the notion that you should enter a crossover on the left!!! Please stop. See diagram. And for God's sake if there is already a car in the crossover and you are behind, don't go into the crossover and pull up on their left!!! It's just stupid.


I like the three way two turning and then some knuckle head comes in to go straight.


----------



## TPD

DQ2B said:


> For the life of me I don't know where so many people got the notion that you should enter a crossover on the left!!! Please stop. See diagram. And for God's sake if there is already a car in the crossover and you are behind, don't go into the crossover and pull up on their left!!! It's just stupid.



After left lane campers, this is probably my #2 pet peeve of drivers around here. Though people who can’t maintain speed while going up a small incline is very close...along with those who can’t maintain speed in the left lane. 

Dammit there’s just too many for me to prioritize!!!


----------



## David

DQ2B said:


> For the life of me I don't know where so many people got the notion that you should enter a crossover on the left!!!


If it's such a problem, then obviously it isn't clear what the proper course of action is to everyone. How about a solid yellow line in the crossover, like the one used everywhere else to denote this side vs that side. I do believe I have seen some on occasion.

Kinda like in other states where you have a really wide intersection on a major thoroughfare where they take the time to paint dashed white lines for left turners so they know where the hell they're supposed to go, especially at night. Not to mention that it helps people maintain their lanes when they are several lanes turning left at the same time.


----------



## Yooper

As far as the attached diagram goes, I think whether one does it the "correct" way or the "incorrect" way depends on the situation.

While I prefer to do it the "correct" way, I've rarely found it to be a problem either way.

--- End of line (MCP)


----------



## GWguy

Sorry, but the "correct" way only works if there are two cars, one in each direction.  If you have 2 or more cars stacked to turn in a lane with 2 or more cars turning in the other lane, it's a total fuster cluck.  No one gets thru, the intersection clogs with people trying to pass in front of each other.  Doing it he "wrong" way, the cars just keep filing out, one behind the other.  No crossing in front of each other.


----------



## vraiblonde

GWguy said:


> Sorry, but the "correct" way only works if there are two cars, one in each direction.  If you have 2 or more cars stacked to turn in a lane with 2 or more cars turning in the other lane, it's a total fuster cluck.  No one gets thru, the intersection clogs with people trying to pass in front of each other.  Doing it he "wrong" way, the cars just keep filing out, one behind the other.  No crossing in front of each other.



This is when that taking turns thing we learned in kindergarten comes into play.  But so many people have a road rage issue with the zipper merge that I have no hope they'll be able to navigate a crossover civilly.


----------



## GWguy

vraiblonde said:


> This is when that taking turns thing we learned in kindergarten comes into play.  But so many people have a road rage issue with the zipper merge that I have no hope they'll be able to navigate a crossover civilly.


I don't see it as a matter of civility, but of ability to flow.  In the "correct" example above, let's say the yellow car cannot pull into traffic because it's quitting time on Rt 235.  If he can't move, neither does the entire lane of red cars turning the other way.   The yellow car, in an attempt to see the traffic coming, will pull further into the intersection and block the red car from turning.  If they use the "incorrect" method, the red line is not affected by the yellow car being stopped.


----------



## PeoplesElbow

Compounding the issue there are many in southern Maryland that are made to work the incorrect way.


----------



## PrchJrkr

I love my commute.


----------



## DannyMotorcycle

in the "incorrect way"  both cars can pull forward a bit to clear each other and see..   how's it go, in theory theory always right, in practice it is not?  The wrong way is probably better IMO


----------



## DQ2B

GWguy said:


> Sorry, but the "correct" way only works if there are two cars, one in each direction.  If you have 2 or more cars stacked to turn in a lane with 2 or more cars turning in the other lane, it's a total fuster cluck.  No one gets thru, the intersection clogs with people trying to pass in front of each other.  Doing it he "wrong" way, the cars just keep filing out, one behind the other.  No crossing in front of each other.


I don't give a rats A$$ if the "other" way flows better. It's incorrect and it causes a confusing mess for the half of the people actually following the rules of the road. And if there's that many cars, they shouldn't pull that far up into the actual crossover section of the road but wait until there is room enough to be there. Additionally, when there isn't ANY merge area (just a crossover) people should NOT pull into the crossover until the car in front of them has left. Pulling up to their left when the first car is making a left turn is pure stupidity. Twice now I've seen this and the first car has no IDEA a car has pulled up on their left (because they are looking right) and that poor bastard clips the idiot that pulled up on their left.


----------



## awpitt

The driving habit I hate is when people make left turns and cross into opposite traffic when reaching the end of their left turn.  This happens all the time at intersections where there's no median barrier to remind them of the obvious.


----------



## lucky_bee

awpitt said:


> The driving habit I hate is when people make left turns and cross into opposite traffic when reaching the end of their left turn.  This happens all the time at intersections where there's no median barrier to remind them of the obvious.


I make that turn multiple times a day, in a fairly large vehicle. Can't tell you how many times I have to stop in the middle of the intersection, bc I'm in the far left turning lane, and someone in the right-left turn late doesn't stay within their turn lane as they turn onto Chancellor's with me. Or watching the cars ahead of me do exactly that: drive right over the stopping area where a barrier really should be - as a car approaches.


----------



## vraiblonde

PrchJrkr said:


> I love my commute.




Me too! 

So let's do merging now!

When the sign says the lane is ending and you should merge left or right, you're supposed to wait until the merge actually begins, then zipper in taking turns like we were taught on Romper Room.  What you're NOT supposed to do is get over immediately, leaving a whole lane with no cars in it so you can jam up a single lane.

And what you're DEFINITELY not supposed to do is jam over and then get all road ragey at the people who do it correctly.

Take THAT, Aps!


----------



## GWguy

vraiblonde said:


> So let's do merging now!


----------



## glhs837

awpitt said:


> The driving habit I hate is when people make left turns and cross into opposite traffic when reaching the end of their left turn.  This happens all the time at intersections where there's no median barrier to remind them of the obvious.




With you on that one. Also love idiots who think they need to swerve a little right before turning left, as if they were driving a friken semi.


----------



## awpitt

glhs837 said:


> With you on that one. Also love idiots who think they need to swerve a little right before turning left, as if they were driving a friken semi.



Oh. I see that all the time.


----------



## GWguy

My worst peeve is where there are two lanes to turn left, a car is in the left-most turn lane, and halfway thru the intersection decides to be in the right lane, completely cutting off the car turning in the right-most lane.

This happens all the time coming out of Maple onto 235SB.  Some asshat in the left-most turn lane cuts across all lanes to get to Sheetz causing chaos in the process.


----------



## glhs837

Yep, I always plan for that, riding or driving.


----------



## GWguy

glhs837 said:


> Yep, I always plan for that, riding or driving.



I certainly do now.....


----------



## Kinnakeet

TPD said:


> After left lane campers, this is probably my #2 pet peeve of drivers around here. Though people who can’t maintain speed while going up a small incline is very close...along with those who can’t maintain speed in the left lane.
> 
> Dammit there’s just too many for me to prioritize!!!


As long as they are going the speed limit there is no problem the problem is people going 70-80 mph if you need to go that fast to get to work then you should get up a lot earlier and leave earlier and by the way where are the police that should be giving these people tickets, on route 4 people are using the right hand median as a lane


----------



## PeoplesElbow

DQ2B said:


> I don't give a rats A$$ if the "other" way flows better. It's incorrect and it causes a confusing mess for the half of the people actually following the rules of the road. And if there's that many cars, they shouldn't pull that far up into the actual crossover section of the road but wait until there is room enough to be there. Additionally, when there isn't ANY merge area (just a crossover) people should NOT pull into the crossover until the car in front of them has left. Pulling up to their left when the first car is making a left turn is pure stupidity. Twice now I've seen this and the first car has no IDEA a car has pulled up on their left (because they are looking right) and that poor bastard clips the idiot that pulled up on their left.


With the people that bitch the left lane is for passing what do you theink they will do about a stopped car blocking the left lane. I rarely use these crossovers but i believe there would be a lot of rear end accidents. I think many of these people are jist trying to avoid being rear ended.


----------



## glhs837

JEFF69Z28 said:


> As long as they are going the speed limit there is no problem the problem is people going 70-80 mph if you need to go that fast to get to work then you should get up a lot earlier and leave earlier and by the way where are the police that should be giving these people tickets, on route 4 people are using the right hand median as a lane




No, if you are obstruction traffic on a multilane highway, you need to get the hell over. Even if it's not legally required, it's the right thing to do unless you are turning left shortly. Should not need a law to require courtesy.


----------



## glhs837

PeoplesElbow said:


> With the people that bitch the left lane is for passing what do you theink they will do about a stopped car blocking the left lane. I rarely use these crossovers but i believe there would be a lot of rear end accidents. I think many of these people are jist trying to avoid being rear ended.




If the dedicated lane to wait for that crossover is full, the correct answer is to keep moving to the next crossover, not to stop in the travel lane.


----------



## MiddleGround

The thing that escapes most of you (by reading the replies) is that many people around here HAVE NO COURTESY FOR OTHER DRIVERS! They do whatever they want, whenever they want because they are more important.

BTW.. with respects to the OP. The reason why there is such a cluster in the medians is because of people wanting to do a U-turn. They are programmed to enter the median into the left portion. I don't know how many times I have turned into the right portion of the median (correctly) and had an on-coming car just site there starring at me and not knowing what the hell to do!


----------



## vraiblonde

Just so you guys know, this thread got picked up on our Facebook page and has been shared 180 times so far.


----------



## GWguy

vraiblonde said:


> Just so you guys know, this thread got picked up on our Facebook page and has been shared 180 times so far.


Aaannnnndddd...... everyone stops posting.


----------



## vraiblonde

vraiblonde said:


> Just so you guys know, this thread got picked up on our Facebook page and has been shared 180 times so far.



Now we're up to 184.


----------



## vraiblonde

GWguy said:


> Aaannnnndddd...... everyone stops posting.



They have stage fright.


----------



## Grumpy

Always amazed at what threads get legs.


----------



## mitzi

MiddleGround said:


> The thing that escapes most of you (by reading the replies) is that many people around here HAVE NO COURTESY FOR OTHER DRIVERS! They do whatever they want, whenever they want because they are more important.
> 
> BTW.. with respects to the OP. The reason why there is such a cluster in the medians is because of people wanting to do a U-turn. They are programmed to enter the median into the left portion. I don't know how many times I have turned into the right portion of the median (correctly) and had an on-coming car just site there starring at me and not knowing what the hell to do!



I have tried doing it the right way and have had so many near miss fender benders it's crazy. Then the ones who pull up beside you on the left. I've even had them pull up to the right and speed into the lane and oncoming traffic.  I've gotten so I avoid going out when the traffic is heavy (I can now, I'm retired). I just can't deal with the stupidity out there.


----------



## Yooper

vraiblonde said:


> ...you're supposed to wait until the merge actually begins, then zipper in taking turns like we were taught on Romper Room.




--- End of line (MCP)


----------



## PeoplesElbow

glhs837 said:


> If the dedicated lane to wait for that crossover is full, the correct answer is to keep moving to the next crossover, not to stop in the travel lane.


Pretty sure I have seen crossovers without a dedicated lane.  There is no way many would keep traveling if there is no room.


----------



## SamSpade

I'm the bad guy in most of these scenarios.
But it's not because I'm an ass - it's because I can 100% count on another driver doing the one thing in the world that will jack me up.
For example - in a merge - yep, I get over right away. Why? Because the *******s at the merge will crowd together and force me onto
the shoulder rather than let me in. THEN some ass ahead of me will put half his car on the shoulder just to piss me off.
I've had a tractor trailer do this to me, on purpose.

I make the short turn rather than the long turn. Why? Because I _know_ if I do otherwise, some ass is going to cross  over from the 
 turn BEHIND me screwing the next guy in line. The whole "you're blocking line of sight argument" is bull - it's what happens at every intersection with a light - and they don't paint those lines on the road so they cross. They run exactly as I turn without them.

If everybody was courteous on the road, I could see it - but it only takes ONE to screw it up, and that one always seems to show up.


----------



## glhs837

SamSpade said:


> I'm the bad guy in most of these scenarios.
> But it's not because I'm an ass - it's because I can 100% count on another driver doing the one thing in the world that will jack me up.
> For example - in a merge - yep, I get over right away. Why? Because the *****s at the merge will crowd together and force me onto
> the shoulder rather than let me in. THEN some ass ahead of me will put half his car on the shoulder just to piss me off.
> I've had a tractor trailer do this to me, on purpose.
> 
> I make the short turn rather than the long turn. Why? Because I _know_ if I do otherwise, some ass is going to cross  over from the
> turn BEHIND me screwing the next guy in line. The whole "you're blocking line of sight argument" is bull - it's what happens at every intersection with a light - and they don't paint those lines on the road so they cross. They run exactly as I turn without them.
> 
> If everybody was courteous on the road, I could see it - but it only takes ONE to screw it up, and that one always seems to show up.




So it's preemptive as$holery? And to clarify, that doesnt mean you're not an ass, just that you think you're are justified in being an ass.  

See, in Boston, that actually works. But only becuase every single driver except the occasional tourist or CT resident does exactly the same


----------



## SamSpade

glhs837 said:


> So it's preemptive as$holery? And to clarify, that doesnt mean you're not an ass, just that you think you're are justified in being an ass.
> 
> See, in Boston, that actually works. But only becuase every single driver except the occasional tourist or CT resident does exactly the same



THAT was the one thing about Boston driving that astonished me - they honor the whole "alternate weave" thing (I lived there for six years).
On the other hand, most of the most horrific things I've ever seen took place there - once, a guy opened the door of his coupe into traffic in 
the Longwood Medical Area - and a bus zoomed past and took it off! YEARLY, a truck gets stuck on Storrow Drive at the Harvard Bridge.
I've seen a car pull off a bumper from another car while in a rotary - and more than once, I was in traffic so tight, cars were _SCRAPING_ the
outside of my car and my outside mirror got taken off.

And I could write a book about the stunts they routinely pull there, like blocking a lane of traffic on a two lane highway while waiting for
traffic on the other side to clear - jumping ahead of oncoming cars for a left turn in an intersection, and the cars behind him using him as
a "shield" while they also make the same left turn.

And there's the "Boston Bump" - the method in parallel parking where you push the car in front of you and in back of you back and forth
until you've parked - and there's maybe an inch between you and the car in front and back, when you're done.

I know all about Boston driving - I did delivery for years.

So yeah, I feel justified being an ass, because I'm almost never wrong, and I usually get screwed doing the right thing.

And I don't get the turn thing at all - like I said, on a marked intersection where there's a light, the way it says not to do it is 
EXACTLY the way it is designed to work in them. They paint lines in the road for it.


----------



## BernieP

vraiblonde said:


> They have stage fright.


it's called performance anxiety and I need my cuddle duds now


----------



## DeeJay

Over 8000 thread views and 1100 shares on Facebook!

This is officially a hot topic.


----------



## vraiblonde

SamSpade said:


> I feel justified being an ass, because I'm almost never wrong



I need this to be my sig line.....


----------



## GWguy

DeeJay said:


> Over 8000 thread views and 1100 shares on Facebook!
> 
> This is officially a hot topic.


Phhffft.  My Solar thread has over 87,000 views.


----------



## MiddleGround

SamSpade said:


> The whole "you're blocking line of sight argument" is bull



WRONG!!!

You can ask the 2 fatal accident victim's family members at 235 and South Patuxent Beach Road. Both accidents were because they didn't know how to properly navigate the median while doing a U-turn and, in one of the cases, the opposing vehicle was a large box truck. Couldn't see around them and got T-boned by a speeder. The other was a T-bone because the opposing vehicle was a huge 3500 series dually.

Just becasue you "have a feeling" or "think" something might happen does not justify what you do as correct.


----------



## Tech

MiddleGround said:


> WRONG!!!
> 
> You can ask the 2 fatal accident victim's family members at 235 and South Patuxent Beach Road. Both accidents were because they didn't know how to properly navigate the median while doing a U-turn and, in one of the cases, the opposing vehicle was a large box truck. Couldn't see around them and got T-boned by a speeder. The other was a T-bone because the opposing vehicle was a huge 3500 series dually.
> 
> Just becasue you "have a feeling" or "think" something might happen does not justify what you do as correct.


The two roads you stated do not intersect.
If you meant Patuxent Beach Rd. that is a controlled intersection.


----------



## SamSpade

MiddleGround said:


> WRONG!!!
> 
> You can ask the 2 fatal accident victim's family members at 235 and South Patuxent Beach Road. Both accidents were because they didn't know how to properly navigate the median while doing a U-turn and, in one of the cases, the opposing vehicle was a large box truck. Couldn't see around them and got T-boned by a speeder. The other was a T-bone because the opposing vehicle was a huge 3500 series dually.
> 
> Just becasue you "have a feeling" or "think" something might happen does not justify what you do as correct.



It's not based "on a feeling". It is EXACTLY the way all intersections work at ones where there are LIGHTS.

Try turning on 4 and 235, or at Aldi's near Wildewood. Or any intersection where there are two directions of people turning at
the light, at the same time. They do not "cross" each other. They work exactly this way. True, there aren't accidents when those
lights are "turn signal only" but they work precisely that way when the light is merely green for everyone.

I turn at the Elk's club going southbound on Chancellor's Run all the time - and there almost always is someone turning in the opposite
lane. It's a light. We do not "cross" as supposedly the "correct" way is, but they do obscure people in the next lane - 
but that's the way it is. You have to be careful, but if you try to do it the "right" way, and there are other cars in line,
you will absolutely have an incident, because I don't think the sharpest traffic cop could unclog that kind of mess.

For this reason - they actually paint LINES ON THE ROAD, showing people where to be. And amazingly - it's the
"wrong" way.


----------



## Tech

SamSpade said:


> It's not based "on a feeling". It is EXACTLY the way all intersections work at ones where there are LIGHTS.
> 
> Try turning on 4 and 235, or at Aldi's near Wildewood. Or any intersection where there are two directions of people turning at
> the light, at the same time. They do not "cross" each other. They work exactly this way. True, there aren't accidents when those
> lights are "turn signal only" but they work precisely that way when the light is merely green for everyone.
> 
> I turn at the Elk's club going southbound on Chancellor's Run all the time - and there almost always is someone turning in the opposite
> lane. It's a light. We do not "cross" as supposedly the "correct" way is, but they do obscure people in the next lane -
> but that's the way it is. You have to be careful, but if you try to do it the "right" way, and there are other cars in line,
> you will absolutely have an incident, because I don't think the sharpest traffic cop could unclog that kind of mess.
> 
> For this reason - they actually paint LINES ON THE ROAD, showing people where to be. And amazingly - it's the
> "wrong" way.


And in crossovers that are deep enough to do it "correctly" they've painted a yellow line down the middle.


----------



## SamSpade

Tech said:


> And in crossovers that are deep enough to do it "correctly" they've painted a yellow line down the middle.



I can't even begin to figure out how that would work.

And as was pointed out, the "right" way doesn't obscure the line of sight ONLY when there's only one car
going each way. If there's even ONE more car in line and you're doing it the "right" way - the second car in
line is STILL blocking your line of sight - if he isn't being a douche and pulling in front of you, blocking your
path. Something that cannot happen doing it the "wrong" way.


----------



## gemma_rae

Make a right turn, drive 100 feet and make a three point U-turn, then come back and make a left.

Oh, and make sure you're on your cellphone while you do it.


----------



## GWguy

gemma_rae said:


> Make a right turn, drive 100 feet and make a three point U-turn, then come back and make a left.
> 
> Oh, and make sure you're on your cellphone while you do it.


So this is a case where 3 rights make a left?  Or is it  3 rights make a wrong ?


----------



## Gilligan

GWguy said:


> So this is a case where 3 rights make a left?  Or is it  3 rights make a wrong ?


----------



## SamSpade

Actually something that DOES kind of piss me off, but - I also anticipate that people will do it anyway ---

Drive down the center lane in a parking lot, especially when the lane is easily wide enough to two opposing lanes.
Almost ANY TIME I am in a parking lot and turn into one of the lanes, there is someone driving right at me in the
middle of the lane. Hopefully, no one is walking to my right, because I usually have to swerve over quickly, because
the douche doing it almost never pulls back over.

For some people, they don't care. I used to have a roommate who routinely walked right down the middle of a lane
in the parking lot - only moving out of the way once he became AWARE there was a car about to hit him. Otherwise - 
blissfully ignorant, walking down the middle.


----------



## MiddleGround

Tech said:


> The two roads you stated do not intersect.
> If you meant Patuxent Beach Rd. that is a controlled intersection.



Sorry... meant South Sandgates road.


----------



## MiddleGround

SamSpade said:


> It's not based "on a feeling". It is EXACTLY the way all intersections work at ones where there are LIGHTS.



My apologies. I thought your response was with regards to the topic in the OP regarding median crossovers. I did not know that you changed the subject matter.


----------



## Goldenhawk

MiddleGround said:


> ... in one of the cases, the opposing vehicle was a large box truck. Couldn't see around them and got T-boned by a speeder. The other was a T-bone because the opposing vehicle was a huge 3500 series dually.


In both of those cases, the person who got hit failed to ensure that the pathway would be clear before they proceeded. The fact that their line of sight was obstructed does not place the fault on the obstructing vehicle, but rather on their own failure to yield to oncoming traffic.

Yes, it sucks when you can't see around someone. Heck, it bugs me that every time I get to the Willows/Great Mills Road intersection coming out from the base, I can't see around vehicles in the opposing turn lane. However, I'm NOT allowed to simply gun it and hope for the best. I have to creep out and look carefully until I _can_ see, before proceeding.


----------



## gemma_rae

GWguy said:


> So this is a case where 3 rights make a left?  Or is it  3 rights make a wrong ?


Yes Sir! Defensive driving taught by Bell Atlantic in Washington D.C. Drive to the intersection past where you want to turn left, make three rights and go straight. Three rights make a left!

That's no BS either.
(it's proprietary information though, so keep a hat on it)


----------



## SamSpade

MiddleGround said:


> My apologies. I thought your response was with regards to the topic in the OP regarding median crossovers. I did not know that you changed the subject matter.



That is gracious of you - but I did not. Perhaps I was not articulate enough. My bad.

IN the OP - in that diagram - if you are at an intersection where there is a LIGHT - you will absolutely see
lines, if any, painted exactly the "wrong" way instructing motorists to drive that way. A typical one that
I go through all the time is the one at Aldi's, going south on 235. Those turn lanes do not cross over each
other. The lines painted on the road instruct you to do it "wrong".

Moreover, in the OP pic - if there is a second person in line behind the first - the view is still obstructed.
You gain nothing by doing it the "right" way. It only works if there are only two or fewer cars. Worse, if the
second driver chooses to creep ahead behind the first one on his side - he's going to BLOCK your path through
the intersection. And that is typically what I experience.

Doing it the "wrong" way still means, an obstructed view -but it is usually that way most of the time, unless there's
ONLY two cars. But it makes it impossible to create the logjam I described.


----------



## GWguy

SamSpade said:


> IN the OP - in that diagram - if you are at an intersection where there is a LIGHT - you will absolutely see
> lines, if any, painted exactly the "wrong" way instructing motorists to drive that way. A typical one that
> I go through all the time is the one at Aldi's, going south on 235. Those turn lanes do not cross over each
> other. The lines painted on the road instruct you to do it "wrong".


And this goes back to an earlier post that said drivers are "pre-conditioned" to follow this pattern, and so in the initial OP diagram, you are pre-conditioned to enter the intersection the "wrong" way.  Doing it the "right" way in not intuitive.


----------



## Tech

SamSpade said:


> Actually something that DOES kind of piss me off, but - I also anticipate that people will do it anyway ---
> 
> Drive down the center lane in a parking lot, especially when the lane is easily wide enough to two opposing lanes.
> Almost ANY TIME I am in a parking lot and turn into one of the lanes, there is someone driving right at me in the
> middle of the lane. Hopefully, no one is walking to my right, because I usually have to swerve over quickly, because
> the douche doing it almost never pulls back over.
> 
> For some people, they don't care. I used to have a roommate who routinely walked right down the middle of a lane
> in the parking lot - only moving out of the way once he became AWARE there was a car about to hit him. Otherwise -
> blissfully ignorant, walking down the middle.


I drive down the middle, walk down the side.
Driving down the middle gives me more time to react when the morons just back out of the space, the same goes for those rugrats that get away from the parents and dart out. But as near the intersections I do pull over, just in case you're coming.


----------



## Tech

SamSpade said:


> I can't even begin to figure out how that would work.
> 
> And as was pointed out, the "right" way doesn't obscure the line of sight ONLY when there's only one car
> going each way. If there's even ONE more car in line and you're doing it the "right" way - the second car in
> line is STILL blocking your line of sight - if he isn't being a douche and pulling in front of you, blocking your
> path. Something that cannot happen doing it the "wrong" way.


I was thinking about some of the crossovers in Mechanicsville.


----------



## PeoplesElbow

Goldenhawk said:


> In both of those cases, the person who got hit failed to ensure that the pathway would be clear before they proceeded. The fact that their line of sight was obstructed does not place the fault on the obstructing vehicle, but rather on their own failure to yield to oncoming traffic.
> 
> Yes, it sucks when you can't see around someone. Heck, it bugs me that every time I get to the Willows/Great Mills Road intersection coming out from the base, I can't see around vehicles in the opposing turn lane. However, I'm NOT allowed to simply gun it and hope for the best. I have to creep out and look carefully until I _can_ see, before proceeding.


Those "Stenny bricks" really screwed up that intersection didn't they.  Also made sure half the people wanting to make U-Turn can't actually turn in the radius that is there.


----------



## GWguy

PeoplesElbow said:


> Those "Stenny bricks" really screwed up that intersection didn't they.  Also made sure half the people wanting to make U-Turn can't actually turn in the radius that is there.


That's true of nearly all u-turns around here.  Waiting at the light on 235SB at Buck Hewitt.  Light changes, make the u-turn.  With my truck and the way the intersection is designed, I wind up crossing into the far right turn lane in the NB side.


----------



## PeoplesElbow

GWguy said:


> That's true of nearly all u-turns around here.  Waiting at the light on 235SB at Buck Hewitt.  Light changes, make the u-turn.  With my truck and the way the intersection is designed, I wind up crossing into the far right turn lane in the NB side.


At least you don't have to back up like most people do at the GMR and Willows road intersection.  Very few vehicles  can make that U-Turn.


----------



## willie

ʎɹɹos˙˙˙ʎɐʍ buoɹʍ ǝɥʇ ǝʞıן ı


----------



## MiddleGround

SamSpade said:


> That is gracious of you - but I did not. Perhaps I was not articulate enough. My bad.
> 
> IN the OP - in that diagram - if you are at an intersection where there is a LIGHT - you will absolutely see
> lines, if any, painted exactly the "wrong" way instructing motorists to drive that way. A typical one that
> I go through all the time is the one at Aldi's, going south on 235. Those turn lanes do not cross over each
> other. The lines painted on the road instruct you to do it "wrong".
> 
> Moreover, in the OP pic - if there is a second person in line behind the first - the view is still obstructed.
> You gain nothing by doing it the "right" way. It only works if there are only two or fewer cars. Worse, if the
> second driver chooses to creep ahead behind the first one on his side - he's going to BLOCK your path through
> the intersection. And that is typically what I experience.
> 
> Doing it the "wrong" way still means, an obstructed view -but it is usually that way most of the time, unless there's
> ONLY two cars. But it makes it impossible to create the logjam I described.



I do not know what "picture in the OP" you are looking at but, the one that I see depicts any of the number of uncontrolled medians on 235. Typically found noth of Hollywood/Leonardtown road. It was YOU that decided to add the "Lights" and totally change the intersection type and scenario.

Feel free to re-post the picture that you see in the OP and point out to me where the "lights" are.

Otherwise... like I said... you clearly altered the topic of the OP and based your post on that change. Which is clearly WRONG according to the OP.

hope you now understand why I posted that you were wrong.


----------



## Gilligan




----------



## SamSpade

MiddleGround said:


> Feel free to re-post the picture that you see in the OP and point out to me where the "lights" are.



I guess I wasn't explaining it very well. The _reason_ I don't agree that it is "wrong" is that when
traffic designers CHOOSE to put lanes in the roadway - such as, at LIGHTS - they put them in
the "wrong" way. So why should there be another "right" way for when it there is NO light?
Does it make sense that the persons who DESIGN the intersection choose to do it "wrong"?

Because of precisely the reasons I gave - there is only one instance where the "right" way grants
an advantage - when there are two and only two opposing cars, one in each opposing lane. Any less
and it is pointless, and any more and you can't gain an advantage of seeing oncoming traffic, because
the NEXT guy in line is still blocking your view - and that's only if he's not an ass and pulls forward,
blocking your turn. 

My "wrong" way avoids that - except you will have to look for traffic carefully - and if there's no one
then it's not a problem.


----------



## MiddleGround

SamSpade said:


> I guess I wasn't explaining it very well. The _reason_ I don't agree that it is "wrong" is that when
> traffic designers CHOOSE to put lanes in the roadway - such as, at LIGHTS - they put them in
> the "wrong" way. So why should there be another "right" way for when it there is NO light?
> Does it make sense that the persons who DESIGN the intersection choose to do it "wrong"?
> 
> Because of precisely the reasons I gave - there is only one instance where the "right" way grants
> an advantage - when there are two and only two opposing cars, one in each opposing lane. Any less
> and it is pointless, and any more and you can't gain an advantage of seeing oncoming traffic, because
> the NEXT guy in line is still blocking your view - and that's only if he's not an ass and pulls forward,
> blocking your turn.
> 
> My "wrong" way avoids that - except you will have to look for traffic carefully - and if there's no one
> then it's not a problem.



Regardless of which side of a median you are on... any traffic that is "in line" to make a turn will block your view. That is a given and a known fact. The reason why you use the right side of the median is to give the best possible look at on-coming traffic. Any other position will hinder your view even more. Even if there are only 2 people in the median, if you pull to the left side and the other person does the same... they WILL hinder your view.


----------



## Kinnakeet

glhs837 said:


> No, if you are obstruction traffic on a multilane highway, you need to get the hell over. Even if it's not legally required, it's the right thing to do unless you are turning left shortly. Should not need a law to require courtesy.


So its ok to go 70-80 mph when you go that fast everyone is in the way


----------



## glhs837

JEFF69Z28 said:


> So its ok to go 70-80 mph when you go that fast everyone is in the way




So, it's a pretty basic thing that if you need to misstate the other guys argument to make a point, you dont really have one. Dont put words in my mouth. Your speed should be relative to surrounding traffic and conditions. Very few places it's safe to go 70 down here, and no place that 80 is okay, IMO. If you are going to same speed as the right lane, and are not turing left, join the folks in that lane. If you are going some speed faster, and someone approaches you from the rear, find a convenient hole to merge in and let people get by you. Its a thing called courtesy.


----------



## Gilligan

glhs837 said:


> If you are going to same speed as the right lane, and are not turing left, join the folks in that lane. If you are going some speed faster, and someone approaches you from the rear, find a convenient hole to merge in and let people get by you. Its a thing called courtesy.



It's also the law in more and more states..since so many drivers are apparently too stupid to drive that way without facing the penalty of a ticket.


----------



## BernieP

SamSpade said:


> I guess I wasn't explaining it very well. The _reason_ I don't agree that it is "wrong" is that when
> traffic designers CHOOSE to put lanes in the roadway -* such as, at LIGHTS* -



Yes, at lights, I've never seen any lines in a cross over / cut through.   At the lights you have two opposing lines of traffic controlled by a stop light.
The lines are there to ensure drivers stay on their side - to act as guidance.   You are not contending with the opposing side going straight.
You changed the situation to fit your narrative


----------



## BernieP

This thread proves my point that there are people out there who are going to justify doing the wrong thing, because they can.
Because they feel they know better or they have "the right" to police other drivers.

Granted, some of the laws in Maryland are strange or antiquated, or simply designed to make writing a ticket easier 

Like what's the legally required distance between speed limit signs?   What rules dictate their placement and spacing?  
When is it legal to make a U-turn at an intersection that has a No U-Turn sign posted?
When is it legal to drive the wrong way (against traffic)?
Are their exceptions to the "most come to a complete stop" at stop signs and red light (even for right turns)?


----------



## SamSpade

BernieP said:


> You changed the situation to fit your narrative



Did you just change names, or am I still talking to Middle Ground?

I don't know how to repeat this without being rude - I used an example of every day life to show
that in every instance at a cross-over *with* a light, the design is "doing it wrong".
Clearly, there are instances where "doing it wrong" are ok, because it's how THEY do it.

I have also repeated - several times - that the ONLY instance where "doing it right" gains
the advantage of an unobstructed view of oncoming traffic is when there's ONLY two cars.
EVERY other scenario imaginable contains an obstructed view of traffic. Except for when 
it's just ONE car.
*(note - NOT talking about a light)*

The DISADVANTAGE of the "right way" is of course, when there are several cars either
way, you are not only screwed by an obstructed view but you gain the mess of opposing
cars BLOCKING each other's crossing. I have seen THIS mess many times at median crossings
in Charlotte Hall.
*(note again - STILL not talking about a light)*

Since the likelihood of such an instance at a median crossing is much less likely to occur with exactly two
cars - the logical way of doing it is the so-called "wrong way".
*(note - STILL not talking about a light)*


----------



## BernieP

Well all the cross overs / cut throughs I've ever seen have a deceleration lane, so you may have vehicles lined up.
So if you do it the wrong way, you and the vehicle next to you are blocking each other and you still have the line up to see around.

Plus, if the motor vehicle handbook states the correct way to do it, who decides at the intersection which way it will be done?

FYSA, where did you learn to drive?


----------



## SamSpade

BernieP said:


> You are not contending with the opposing side going straight.



Just wanted to add - I did address this in another post - you DO have to contend with the opposing
side going straight in a lighted intersection where you may turn without a green turn signal - as I mentioned
turning into the Elks club on southbound Chancellor's Run road. In that instance, the light is of no consequence
because either car turning may STILL contend with oncoming traffic when the light is green.

When the light is green at that intersection - it functions EXACTLY like a median crossover, with both
sides trying to cross. And in that instance, you MUST do it "the wrong way". And there's nothing painted
on the road, there.


----------



## SamSpade

BernieP said:


> Plus, if the motor vehicle handbook states the correct way to do it, who decides at the intersection which way it will be done?



The city planners and state bureaucrats who realize their rule book doesn't work.
When they realize it - they change the rules. I've already indicated several instances
where the "rules" aren't applied - because they're impractical, and impossible to
enforce.

We disagree. I disagree with the book, too. I pass people on the shoulder who are making left turns 
on a single lane road. I'm _supposed_ to wait - but I am not going to do that. I break the speed limit 
and pass drivers who are swerving and likely to hit someone. I am not supposed to do that.
I go through lights on a rainy day when it's clear the guy tailgating me is going to end up in my
trunk if I hit the brakes. I don't leave the recommended number of car lengths in front of me when
on the Beltway - because drivers will ALWAYS shove in.

And I have an excellent driving record. Two tickets in about forty years of driving - I'm guessing
that's not bad.


----------



## Goldenhawk

Is the MD driver's handbook legally binding, or simply advice?

I can't find anything in the MD traffic codes that specifies how it must be done. 

I vote for the "turn left immediately" instead of "pass the other driver before turning left" because it prevents gridlock at the intersection.


----------



## GWguy

I vote for:  if it looks like it's going to be an issue, just keep driving straight until you run out of gas.


----------



## Tech

Goldenhawk said:


> Is the MD driver's handbook legally binding, or simply advice?
> 
> I can't find anything in the MD traffic codes that specifies how it must be done.
> 
> I vote for the "turn left immediately" instead of "pass the other driver before turning left" because it prevents gridlock at the intersection.


Also a good number of these crossovers are for u-turns only but they want you to do a do-si-do?


----------



## PeoplesElbow

Goldenhawk said:


> I can't find anything in the MD traffic codes that specifies how it must be done.


That is interesting, maybe the OP is incorrect as far as Maryland is concerned.  I admit I did not learn to drive in MD and their explanation on how to do a crossover was completely alien to me., but I had not even seen many U-Turns before I moved to MD, and never a traffic circle.


----------



## BernieP

*



			2010 Maryland Code
TRANSPORTATION
TITLE 21 - VEHICLE LAWS - RULES OF THE ROAD
Subtitle 6 - Turning and Starting; Signals on Stopping, Turning, and Starting
Section 21-601 - Required position and method of turning at intersections or crossovers.
		
Click to expand...

*


> *§ 21-601. Required position and method of turning at intersections or crossovers.*
> 
> 
> (a)  Right turns.- If the driver of a vehicle intends to turn right at any intersection, he shall approach the intersection and make the right turn as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway.
> 
> (b)  Left turns - In general.- If the driver of a vehicle intends to turn left at any intersection or crossover, he shall approach the intersection or crossover in the extreme left-hand lane lawfully available to traffic moving in the same direction.
> 
> (c)  Left turns - Leaving intersection.- If the driver of a vehicle intends to turn left at any intersection or *crossover*, the driver shall, after entering the intersection or crossover, *make the left turn so as to leave the intersection in a lane lawfully available to traffic moving in the same direction on* the roadway being entered.
> 
> (d)  Powers of State Highway Administration and local authorities.-
> 
> (1) The State Highway Administration or any local authority may place a traffic control device at or near any intersection in its jurisdiction and, with it, direct that vehicles turning at the intersection travel a course different from one specified in this section.
> 
> (2) At an intersection where a traffic control device is placed under this subsection, the driver of a vehicle may not turn otherwise than as directed by the device.
> 
> [An. Code 1957, art. 661/2, § 11-601; 1977, ch. 14, § 2; 1986, ch. 472, § 1.]



"*leave the intersection in a lane lawfully available to traffic moving in the same direction on* the roadway being entered".
That means you should be on the right side - aligned with the lane.   

The position for U-turns in a crossover is not explicit, but it would be safe to say that if the other case forces vehicles to the right - to align with the lane they intend to enter, it would be advisable for the vehicle making a U-turn to follow the left turning vehicles or you would have 2 vehicles in the crossover sitting side by side, which would pose an interesting dilemma to other drivers.


----------



## GWguy

BernieP said:


> "*leave the intersection in a lane lawfully available to traffic moving in the same direction on* the roadway being entered".
> That means you should be on the right side - aligned with the lane.


I do not read it that way.  It says, "the driver shall, *after* entering the intersection or crossover, *make the left turn *so as to *leave* the intersection *in a lane lawfully available to traffic moving in the same direction*."
That says as you pull out from the intersection into the road, you're going in the correct direction, not against the traffic, and is post-fact.  It says nothing about which side of the crossover to be used.


----------



## Tech

If everybody was doing it, ya think the cops could pick up some easy money.


----------



## GWguy

Although, Bernie, I give you points for finding the closest description so far.


----------



## BernieP

GWguy said:


> Although, Bernie, I give you points for finding the closest description so far.


Don't forget they are "crossovers", they serve multiple purposes, vehicles coming straight across a divided highway, left turns and u-turns.
Drivers can enter via a turn lane or from a side street.
Again, regardless of the entry point and destination, you can't have two or three vehicles with a different idea over which side of the crossover is appropriate.   If you leave the crossover on the left side, you are now entering a lane going in the wrong direction.   Most of all, there has to be one rule, and the rule of thumb in the US is we drive on the right side of the road.

What makes me laugh is the attitude by some that if THEY think the rule is wrong (they know better) then it is acceptable to do it their way.
Which is why I asked where "they" learned to drive.


----------



## vraiblonde

Over 1300 FB shares right now.


----------



## Kyle

That's almost to the threshold of them declaring it hate-speech and deleting the post, isn't it?


----------



## BOP

David said:


> If it's such a problem, then obviously it isn't clear what the proper course of action is to everyone. How about a solid yellow line in the crossover, like the one used everywhere else to denote this side vs that side. I do believe I have seen some on occasion.
> 
> Kinda like in other states where you have a really wide intersection on a major thoroughfare where they take the time to paint dashed white lines for left turners so they know where the hell they're supposed to go, especially at night. Not to mention that it helps people maintain their lanes when they are several lanes turning left at the same time.
> 
> View attachment 137751


In Southern Maryland, that just means do whatever the hell you feel like doing.  And don't think any of the four vehicles in the northbound lane can't and won't hang a U-turn and head back south.


----------



## PeoplesElbow

BernieP said:


> Don't forget they are "crossovers", they serve multiple purposes, vehicles coming straight across a divided highway, left turns and u-turns.
> Drivers can enter via a turn lane or from a side street.
> Again, regardless of the entry point and destination, you can't have two or three vehicles with a different idea over which side of the crossover is appropriate.   If you leave the crossover on the left side, you are now entering a lane going in the wrong direction.   Most of all, there has to be one rule, and the rule of thumb in the US is we drive on the right side of the road.
> 
> What makes me laugh is the attitude by some that if THEY think the rule is wrong (they know better) then it is acceptable to do it their way.
> Which is why I asked where "they" learned to drive.



I've got to wonder why they built the crossovers on RT235 near the Toyota dealer and Navy Federal Credit Union so wrong.  The one for the northbound traffic serves no purpose from what I can tell other than yet another spot to make a U-Turn or a place to get someone to drive the wrong direction up RT235 until they get to the NFCU.


----------



## DannyMotorcycle

one of my peeves..  i'll be in the middle lane on an interstate.. and some ******* for no reason will want to go from the right lane to right in front of me and his lane is completely clear.. but he'll cut  me off to be behind the car in front of me..

And then you've got the illegals who won't turn right on red and there's the absence of any on coming traffic...

and then you've got the early mergers instead of zippering, but they're not early merging, they're just impeding the lane with the front left corner of their car into the lane they want to get into.. if traffic is stopped just keep going fool and merge when you find a big opening or better yet just stop being a pussy and do the zipper merge.. If they won't let you in, go around that ******* and get in. .. or don't be afraid to stick your nose in, they will let you in instead of hit you.


----------



## Tech

PeoplesElbow said:


> I've got to wonder why they built the crossovers on RT235 near the Toyota dealer and Navy Federal Credit Union so wrong.  The one for the northbound traffic serves no purpose from what I can tell other than yet another spot to make a U-Turn or a place to get someone to drive the wrong direction up RT235 until they get to the NFCU.


The highway was built prior to the development of the area, it use to be just a trailer park and bingo hall. Put in for Buck Hewitt traffic to go north.


----------



## MiddleGround

After reading this thread.... I can see why there are so many accidents around here.


----------



## GWguy

Just an observation:
I was pulling out from the Bean building this morning, heading SB.  There is a crossover in front of me.  A car NB on 235 pulls into the crossover on the "correct" side to cross and enter the Bean building road.  Another van pulls in behind him aiming for the "correct" side.  The intersection is now blocked.  Totally.  With just 2 cars.  A car comes in SB on 235 and wants to do a u-turn at the same crossover.  He can't even get to the intersection and is pretty much left hanging out in the road.

Had the first car done it "wrong", there would have been no blocked intersection.


----------



## FED_UP

DannyMotorcycle said:


> one of my peeves..  i'll be in the middle lane on an interstate.. and some ***** for no reason will want to go from the right lane to right in front of me and his lane is completely clear.. but he'll cut  me off to be behind the car in front of me..
> 
> And then you've got the illegals who won't turn right on red and there's the absence of any on coming traffic...
> 
> and then you've got the early mergers instead of zippering, but they're not early merging, they're just impeding the lane with the front left corner of their car into the lane they want to get into.. if traffic is stopped just keep going fool and merge when you find a big opening or better yet just stop being a pussy and do the zipper merge.. If they won't let you in, go around that ***** and get in. .. or don't be afraid to stick your nose in, they will let you in instead of hit you.


So about 4:00-6:00pm I can tell your on Chancellors run road heading to 235N looking at the people zipping down the right turn lane and but in or stop right turn traffic to get in the left lane.


----------



## PeoplesElbow

Tech said:


> The highway was built prior to the development of the area, it use to be just a trailer park and bingo hall. Put in for Buck Hewitt traffic to go north.


It was still modified after the fact and could have been modified "correctly" and in a less moronic manner.


----------



## MiddleGround

GWguy said:


> Had the first car done it "wrong", there would have been no blocked intersection.



Please tell me you are not serious about this. Do you honestly not know what was wrong with the situation you just explained??


----------



## FED_UP

PeoplesElbow said:


> It was still modified after the fact and could have been modified "correctly" and in a less moronic manner.



Do you mean:  

stupid, foolish, senseless, brainless, mindless, idiotic, imbecilic, imbecile, insane, lunatic, asinine, ridiculous, ludicrous, absurd, preposterous, silly, inane, witless, half-baked, empty-headed, unintelligent, halfwitted, slow-witted, weak-minded; More
_informal_crazy, daft, dumb, dead from the neck up, brain-dead, cretinous, doltish, thick, thickheaded, birdbrained, peabrained, pinheaded, dopey, dim, dimwitted, dippy, pie-faced, fat-headed, blockheaded, boneheaded, lamebrained, chuckleheaded, dunderheaded, wooden-headed, muttonheaded, damfool; 



antonyms:intelligent


----------



## GWguy

MiddleGround said:


> Please tell me you are not serious about this. Do you honestly not know what was wrong with the situation you just explained??


Tell me.....


----------



## BernieP

PeoplesElbow said:


> I've got to wonder why they built the crossovers on RT235 near the Toyota dealer and Navy Federal Credit Union so wrong.  The one for the northbound traffic serves no purpose from what I can tell other than yet another spot to make a U-Turn or a place to get someone to drive the wrong direction up RT235 until they get to the NFCU.


I think the collective had a power outage in the hive when they were doing the design for the section of 235 between Gate 1 / Pegg Rd and Milestone Landing Road.

Why did they not align Expedition / Exploration instead of having two half ass lights not even a quarter of a mile from gate 1?
as you said, the cross overs make no sense, particularly the north bound entrance.  It's like a second cross over if you missed the light and the one by Quality.   

Then there is the light at Rue Purchase and Buck Hewitt roads.   The damage was done when the put the light in, why didn't they just make it a four way instead of the limited access - I guess they like U-turns and giving drivers reasons to do dumb things (yes, you, the peeps who pull out of CVS and go straight for the left lane so you can make the U turn there and not a quarter mile down the road.  


I give them props though for how they handled access to the neighborhood across from First Colony.
They got a safe, controlled, exit (allowing drivers to go north, south or straight without a U-Turn) AND the design pretty much eliminates the use of the neighborhood as a short cut from Rt 4.


----------



## MiddleGround

GWguy said:


> Tell me.....



I'll give you a hint....

The van driver in your scenario is not doing what they are supposed to. Hopefully, you can figure it out from there


----------



## BernieP

GWguy said:


> Just an observation: Another van pulls in behind him aiming for the "correct" side. The intersection is now blocked. Totally. With just 2 cars.
> Had the first car done it "wrong", there would have been no blocked intersection.


Probably not marked on the deceleration lane is a stop line, the second NB vehicle should not have entered the intersection with the first vehicle still there.
The SB vehicle should be stopped at the line and yield the RoW to the vehicle in the intersection.
If one party decides they know better, then the next two vehicles would enter simultaneously and potentially collide head on, if one opted for method B for bad.


----------



## Goldenhawk

MiddleGround said:


> The van driver in your scenario is not doing what they are supposed to.


You are technically correct. However, I stipulate that traffic flows more smoothly and more safely and with less delay when both drivers stay to the left edge of the crossover. As soon as a gap appears in opposing traffic, a left-hugging vehicle can immediately proceed with the u-turn or left turn they need to make. Each vehicle at the front of the line has good visibility (the other drivers' line of sight is irrelevant until they are at the front of the line), and each has the opportunity to proceed promptly, and there are no potentials for bumping fenders with opposing vehicles crossing and then turning.

By contrast, staying to the right until past the other vehicle usually creates gridlock (c.f. "human nature") and it requires a rather complicated dance of "who's got right of way." Whenever there are vehicles stacked up in the turn lanes approaching the crossover; there's no clear answer to "who got there first" and neither vehicle is to the right of the other. Thus the normal right-of-way rules are both irrelevant. So there is an increased chance that the vehicles will conflict trying to take the right of way, and even well-meaning, gracious drivers can end up gridlocked. That situation is totally avoided by hugging the left edge.

Note that someone's previous comment about how the left-hugging vehicles cause problems for a vehicle using the crossover to ENTER or CROSS the highway from a side street is (in my opinion) a red herring. In a situation where there are already vehicles stacked up in the crossover turn lane, those waiting vehicles are already in the roadway and thus definitely have the right-of-way. In that case, the side-street vehicles cannot legally enter the same intersection, and thus there is no chance for this situation to cause a conflict.

If the SHA really wanted to make it obvious, then a traffic control device could be implemented - a dashed line indicating correct motion, or a sign indicating what was mandatory. Since they have not chosen to do so, and there is no unambiguous language in the law, I believe it's incorrect to call the left-hugging method "wrong".


----------



## PeoplesElbow

Some simple lines would fix the entire issue of what is wrong and right.


----------



## GWguy

PeoplesElbow said:


> Some simple lines would fix the entire issue of what is wrong and right.


----------



## GWguy

BernieP said:


> Probably not marked on the deceleration lane is a stop line, the second NB vehicle should not have entered the intersection with the first vehicle still there.
> The SB vehicle should be stopped at the line and yield the RoW to the vehicle in the intersection.


This is true.  No argument there.  But in reality, _it will never happen_.  The 2nd car will ALWAYS move forward to eliminate the space between vehicles.  Human nature.


Goldenhawk said:


> You are technically correct. However, I stipulate that traffic flows more smoothly and more safely and with less delay when both drivers stay to the left edge of the crossover. As soon as a gap appears in opposing traffic, a left-hugging vehicle can immediately proceed with the u-turn or left turn they need to make. Each vehicle at the front of the line has good visibility (the other drivers' line of sight is irrelevant until they are at the front of the line), and each has the opportunity to proceed promptly, and there are no potentials for bumping fenders with opposing vehicles crossing and then turning.


And this was exactly my point.


----------



## RoseRed

Not a cross-over. but there was ANOTHER really bad accident at 235/Sotterley Road this afternoon.


----------



## Grumpy

RoseRed said:


> Not a cross-over. but there was ANOTHER really bad accident at 235/Sotterley Road this afternoon.


Heard about that as I was leaving work, cut over to Rte 5 and a nice drive thru the countryside..should have stopped in and bugged DoWhat.


----------



## RoseRed

Grumpy said:


> Heard about that as I was leaving work, cut over to Rte 5 and a nice drive thru the countryside..should have stopped in and bugged DoWhat.


There was also one at St. Andrews/235 reported.  I did get passed the guy in the center lane on 235 @ Rt 4 that lost his front tire.


----------



## Grumpy

RoseRed said:


> There was also one at St. Andrews/235 reported.  I did get passed the guy in the center lane on 235 @ Rt 4 that lost his front tire.


I went south outta my building and cut over to 5, 235N is always a pain, even worse with the slightest accident.


----------



## RoseRed

Grumpy said:


> I went south outta my building and cut over to 5, 235N is always a pain, even worse with the slightest accident.


Not usually at 3pm when I leave for the day.


----------



## GWguy

Better you guys than me.  I was napping and the sirens woke me up.


----------



## RoseRed

GWguy said:


> Better you guys than me.  I was napping and the sirens woke me up.


Braggert.


----------



## PeoplesElbow

GWguy said:


> View attachment 137887


That looks like the lines on 235 when I first moved here and couldn't figure out which of the three sets I was supposed to follow, but it didn't appear that half of the other cars could either.


----------



## The Boss

My biggest pet peev, "BLINKERS" or the lack of people using them!!! They were invented for good reason and they are not optional...............USE the DAMN THINGS!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## MiddleGround

Goldenhawk said:


> You are technically correct. However, I stipulate that traffic flows more smoothly and more safely and with less delay when both drivers stay to the left edge of the crossover. As soon as a gap appears in opposing traffic, a left-hugging vehicle can immediately proceed with the u-turn or left turn they need to make. Each vehicle at the front of the line has good visibility (the other drivers' line of sight is irrelevant until they are at the front of the line), and each has the opportunity to proceed promptly, and there are no potentials for bumping fenders with opposing vehicles crossing and then turning.
> 
> By contrast, staying to the right until past the other vehicle usually creates gridlock (c.f. "human nature") and it requires a rather complicated dance of "who's got right of way." Whenever there are vehicles stacked up in the turn lanes approaching the crossover; there's no clear answer to "who got there first" and neither vehicle is to the right of the other. Thus the normal right-of-way rules are both irrelevant. So there is an increased chance that the vehicles will conflict trying to take the right of way, and even well-meaning, gracious drivers can end up gridlocked. That situation is totally avoided by hugging the left edge.
> 
> Note that someone's previous comment about how the left-hugging vehicles cause problems for a vehicle using the crossover to ENTER or CROSS the highway from a side street is (in my opinion) a red herring. In a situation where there are already vehicles stacked up in the crossover turn lane, those waiting vehicles are already in the roadway and thus definitely have the right-of-way. In that case, the side-street vehicles cannot legally enter the same intersection, and thus there is no chance for this situation to cause a conflict.
> 
> If the SHA really wanted to make it obvious, then a traffic control device could be implemented - a dashed line indicating correct motion, or a sign indicating what was mandatory. Since they have not chosen to do so, and there is no unambiguous language in the law, I believe it's incorrect to call the left-hugging method "wrong".



A long explanation to justify doing this the WRONG way.

Its not that complicated folks! There should only be 2 cars MAXIMUM in the median. Both to their far right sides of the median. Anything and anyone else in the median at any time is WRONG! Any other explanation or justification is wrong.

Of course, if you can provide documentation to prove me wrong... I'm happy to oblige you in reading it.


----------



## Goldenhawk

I agree that there is justification to do it the way I've described.

I disagree that it is "wrong".


----------



## SamSpade

RoseRed said:


> Not a cross-over. but there was ANOTHER really bad accident at 235/Sotterley Road this afternoon.



JUST south of that intersection - is a cross-over I suspect you and I both use often - the one at Mervell Dean.
It has two deceleration lanes, no lines - but northbound can ONLY be used as a U-Turn - there's nothing to turn
left into from that direction.

So which way is "right" there?


----------



## glhs837

SamSpade said:


> JUST south of that intersection - is a cross-over I suspect you and I both use often - the one at Mervell Dean.
> It has two deceleration lanes, no lines - but northbound can ONLY be used as a U-Turn - there's nothing to turn
> left into from that direction.
> 
> So which way is "right" there?




Same as the others. Use them all the same.


----------



## RoseRed

SamSpade said:


> JUST south of that intersection - is a cross-over I suspect you and I both use often - the one at Mervell Dean.
> It has two deceleration lanes, no lines - but northbound can ONLY be used as a U-Turn - there's nothing to turn
> left into from that direction.
> 
> So which way is "right" there?


I hardly ever use that one.  If I'm heading south, I usually hop off at Dean Lumber.  Or when leaving home, I usually follow MDRd all the way down to the light at 235.


----------



## SamSpade

RoseRed said:


> I hardly ever use that one.  If I'm heading south, I usually hop off at Dean Lumber.  Or when leaving home, I usually follow MDRd all the way down to the light at 235.



THAT one is the same, though (I use that one too). 
Two deceleration lanes, northbound can only be used for U-Turn, as there's no street across the road.


----------



## RoseRed

SamSpade said:


> THAT one is the same, though (I use that one too).
> Two deceleration lanes, northbound can only be used for U-Turn, as there's no street across the road.


True, but I never need to go the other way.


----------



## David

PeoplesElbow said:


> Some simple lines would fix the entire issue of what is wrong and right.


Thank you! I said that on page 1


----------



## MiddleGround

Goldenhawk said:


> I agree that there is justification to do it the way I've described.
> 
> I disagree that it is "wrong".



Same kind of justification for going through a Stop sign at an empty intersection. Still doesn't mean it is right!

If you want to drive on the left side of the road, I suggest you move to the UK. Otherwise... you are an eventual accident waiting to happen.


----------



## Goldenhawk

I think I've clearly made a reasonable case that left-hugging is both safer and more efficient. You may disagree; that's fine.  But you're speaking as if there are absolutes at play here.

I stipulated that Maryland law is NOT clear about the "right way", and furthermore, I believe there are other states in our country where being on the left IS the legally mandated way to do it. For example, I read the Virginia law to explicitly require hugging the left side of an intersection (for example "Whenever practicable, the left turn shall be made to the left of the center of the intersection"). So YOUR personal opinion of "the right way" is somewhat irrelevant to this discussion.

Accident waiting to happen? Again, that's your opinion, not a fact. I've made a case that left-hugging is SAFER and thus less likely to result in an accident. It has better lines of sight, reducing the chance for t-bone collisions. It is also less likely to result in gridlock, which often results in aggressive and stupid actions by those who feel trapped.


----------



## GWguy

^ what he said.


----------



## David

In case anyone now wants to rant about using Roundabouts









						St. Mary's Co. - Traffic Tip Tuesdays: Roundabouts
					

#TrafficTipTuesdays   Roundabout intersections   From the Maryland Driver’s Manual:   “Approach roads to roundabouts are controlled by yield signs. Entering traffic must always yield to traffic already in the roundabout.   Be cautious when approaching the roundabout the same as any other...




					forums.somd.com
				









*And now for less interesting Roundabout videos:*


----------



## luvmygdaughters

I do, I want to rant!!!  If there is no traffic in the circle...YOU DO NOT HAVE TO STOP!!!!!.  Its a yield...not a stop sign.  Of course, you have to yield to the traffic in the circle...NOT THE TRAFFIC THAT HASN'T EVEN GOTTEN TO THE CIRCLE YET!!!!  A Yield sign is something else that needs to be explained...but that's another rant.


----------



## RoseRed

luvmygdaughters said:


> I do, I want to rant!!!  If there is no traffic in the circle...YOU DO NOT HAVE TO STOP!!!!!.  Its a yield...not a stop sign.  Of course, you have to yield to the traffic in the circle...NOT THE TRAFFIC THAT HASN'T EVEN GOTTEN TO THE CIRCLE YET!!!!  A Yield sign is something else that needs to be explained...but that's another rant.


Why is it so hard for some people!?!


----------



## luvmygdaughters

RoseRed said:


> Why is it so hard for some people!?!


----------



## Kyle




----------



## RoseRed

Kyle said:


>



Mad skillz.


----------



## GWguy

Down in Tortola, they drive on the left.  I had no problem with that, but everytime I entered a traffic circle on the left, I came out on the right.


----------



## glhs837

luvmygdaughters said:


> I do, I want to rant!!!  If there is no traffic in the circle...YOU DO NOT HAVE TO STOP!!!!!.  Its a yield...not a stop sign.  Of course, you have to yield to the traffic in the circle...NOT THE TRAFFIC THAT HASN'T EVEN GOTTEN TO THE CIRCLE YET!!!!  A Yield sign is something else that needs to be explained...but that's another rant.



Preach, Sistah!!!!! People usng the one at Gate 3 are horrible for that, and since I hate to put a foot down on the bike, it drives me nuts!!!


----------



## lucky_bee

luvmygdaughters said:


> I do, I want to rant!!!  If there is no traffic in the circle...YOU DO NOT HAVE TO STOP!!!!!.  Its a yield...not a stop sign.  Of course, you have to yield to the traffic in the circle...NOT THE TRAFFIC THAT HASN'T EVEN GOTTEN TO THE CIRCLE YET!!!!  A Yield sign is something else that needs to be explained...but that's another rant.


the new roundabout at FDR and Old Rolling Road is so painful to watch sometimes  
they either fly right thru it without noticing I'm already in it and have to slam on my brakes, or they stop while they're in it when they see me approaching


----------



## BernieP

RoseRed said:


> Mad skillz.


I literally drove over the traffic circle in on Italian town it was so small.  Maybe a little bigger than a manhole cover.
Actually rather stupid


----------



## glhs837

lucky_bee said:


> the new roundabout at FDR and Old Rolling Road is so painful to watch sometimes
> they either fly right thru it without noticing I'm already in it and have to slam on my brakes, or they stop while they're in it when they see me approaching




While we are on the new chunk of FDR, who the hell chose that median vegetation?


----------



## BernieP

MiddleGround said:


> Same kind of justification for going through a Stop sign at an empty intersection. Still doesn't mean it is right!
> 
> If you want to drive on the left side of the road, I suggest you move to the UK. Otherwise... you are an eventual accident waiting to happen.


^
This
It's not just people making left or U-Turns off of a road like 235, there are also people who can come from the intersecting street who may want to go straight or turn left.
Being on the "left" side of the intersection puts you head on with that vehicle.
Of course they are suppose to read your mind and move to the other side of the road and hope there is nobody coming head on over there.
See, we eliminate that confusion by agreeing to all drive on the right hand side of the road, whether it suits our particular fancy or not.
What's to say you want to stop at your mail box, is it okay to drive down the street in the wrong lane so you can put your hand into your mailbox without having to get out of your car?
sort of like the douchebag on Solomons the other day.  Decided he was to important to go to the other end of the lot to exit, so he backed up a bit and swung around and went out the entrance.


----------



## glhs837

BernieP said:


> ^
> 
> What's to say you want to stop at your mail box,* is it okay to drive down the street in the wrong lane so you can put your hand into your mailbox without having to get out of your car?*



NO!!!! NEVERNONEVER!!!!!!! SHOOT THESE PEOPLE!!!!!!!


----------



## RoseRed

BernieP said:


> I literally drove over the traffic circle in on Italian town it was so small.  Maybe a little bigger than a manhole cover.
> Actually rather stupid


Like that truck driver that blew through the one in Clements and crashed into the house a couple of years ago?


----------



## GWguy

RoseRed said:


> Like that truck driver that blew through the one in Clements and crashed into the house a couple of years ago?


I was thinking that, but couldn't remember if that was before or after the round-a-bout.


----------



## RoseRed

GWguy said:


> I was thinking that, but couldn't remember if that was before or after the round-a-bout.



Prior to.








						Tractor Trailer Crashes Into Maryland Home; 5 Sent to Hospital
					

Five people, including two children, were sent to the hospital after a tractor trailer crashed into a Clements, Maryland, home, police said.




					www.nbcwashington.com


----------



## GWguy

TY.


----------



## Goldenhawk

BernieP said:


> It's not just people making left or U-Turns off of a road like 235, there are also people who can come from the intersecting street who may want to go straight or turn left. Being on the "left" side of the intersection puts you head on with that vehicle.


This keeps being raised as a good reason to hug right. But if there are cars already in the intersection waiting to turn, the side-street driver CANNOT legally enter the same intersection. This is a straw man argument.


----------



## PeoplesElbow

BernieP said:


> I literally drove over the traffic circle in on Italian town it was so small.  Maybe a little bigger than a manhole cover.
> Actually rather stupid


Did the car go wop wop as you did it?


----------



## PeoplesElbow

FWIW I was in Hagarstown today and there saw a cross over that had lines painted in it on how traffic should flow.


----------



## GWguy

PeoplesElbow said:


> FWIW I was in Hagarstown today and there saw a cross over that had lines painted in it on how traffic should flow.


I was thinking about stop lines and how they would work in the crossover situation.  They wouldn't.  On any given day, watch how people stop at a stop light.  They don't stop at the stop line.  They don't stop at the first line of the crosswalk.  More often than not, the front of their car is beyond the second line of the crosswalk, almost a full car length past the stop line and into the intersection.

Stop lines at a crossover would be ignored around here.


----------



## GWguy

PeoplesElbow said:


> FWIW I was in Hagarstown today and there saw a cross over that had lines painted in it on how traffic should flow.


Ok...... so how were they painted????


----------



## PeoplesElbow

GWguy said:


> Ok...... so how were they painted????


Believe it or not I saw several marked for each way of doing it.  The important thing to take away is that they were clearly marked for how to do it, there was no ambiguity, the roads there are designed with quite a bit more thought.


----------



## GWguy

PeoplesElbow said:


> Believe it or not I saw several marked for each way of doing it.  The important thing to take away is that they were clearly marked for how to do it, there was no ambiguity, the roads there are designed with quite a bit more thought.
> 
> View attachment 138081
> View attachment 138082


Got it.  Thanx.  Kind of looks like it's "engineer's decision" and not legally one way or the other.


----------



## GWguy

I'm looking again at the crossing with the arrows.  That's not a stop line.  That's an indicator of direction.  The triangles are pointing in the direction of travel, so again, you enter the crossover on the left in both of those examples.

Nebermind.... disregard.  Found the meaning of the triangle road symbols.  They are YIELD markings, and appear to be pointing in the opposite direction of the flow of traffic.  So my first comment stands... engineer's discretion.


----------



## Goldenhawk

GWguy said:


> Got it.  Thanx.  Kind of looks like it's "engineer's decision" and not legally one way or the other.


Well, once lines are painted, they are an official “traffic control device” per MD state law, and thus extremely legally relevant and enforceable.


----------



## littlelady

Goldenhawk said:


> Well, once lines are painted, they are an official “traffic control device” per MD state law, and thus extremely legally relevant and enforceable.



You make a good point.  Otherwise, traffic/drivers would be more out of control than they are, already.  Can I say that I have never gotten a traffic ticket, or caused an accident?  I am 64, and hope that holds.  I want that on my tombstone.


----------



## MiddleGround

And I wonder why there are so many accidents around here!


----------



## MiddleGround

Goldenhawk said:


> This keeps being raised as a good reason to hug right. But if there are cars already in the intersection waiting to turn, the side-street driver CANNOT legally enter the same intersection. This is a straw man argument.



It doesn't matter.... PERIOD!

You keep trying to justify doing it the WRONG way with false logic. There is NO instance where it is OK for your vehicle to be on the left side of a median unless specifically authorized by road signage. We drive on the right side of the road in the US. PERIOD! The ONLY instance I have ever seen where left-side driving was allowed was on a multi-lane, U-turn only median. THATS IT!

Once again, if anyone can provide documentation otherwise.. I'd be more than happy to read it and change my stance however, none has been produced thus far. Only "opinions"


----------



## RoseRed




----------



## Gilligan

Dis tread really has some legs...


----------



## BernieP

GWguy said:


> Stop lines at a crossover would be ignored around here.


Pretty much everything is ignored around here because there seems to be a preponderance of people who know better.
There way is the right way, and they will enforce those rules.
The words, common sense don't apply.
Long line of traffic on Wildewod Blvd at the Parkway.  First car in line is trying to make a left.   A few of us stayed in line, refusing to ride down the bike / pedestrian path.  Not the asshats behind us, they used "the shoulder" to bypass the line.
Signs inside clearly state don't drive or park on the shoulder, the bike and pedestrian path is clearly marked.   Sort of like driving down the sidewalk.
But you will get an argument that it's ok, because it's part of the road. (regardless of the signs and lines.


----------



## BernieP

GWguy said:


> I'm looking again at the crossing with the arrows.  That's not a stop line.  That's an indicator of direction.  The triangles are pointing in the direction of travel, so again, you enter the crossover on the left in both of those examples.
> 
> Nebermind.... disregard.  Found the meaning of the triangle road symbols.  They are YIELD markings, and appear to be pointing in the opposite direction of the flow of traffic.  So my first comment stands... engineer's discretion.
> View attachment 138084


Not questioning, merely stating I don't recall seeing yield lines, will have to look more closely.
The solid white lines,  I know people violate those, hell, last minute, unsignaled lane changes at the light are common.
Isn't there a rule that you should not switch lanes 200 feet from an intersection?  yet, even with the white line, people do.


----------



## MiddleGround

BernieP said:


> Isn't there a rule that you should not switch lanes 200 feet from an intersection?  yet, even with the white line, people do.


Fairly sure that is something that is taught as a "rule of thumb" to follow.

I do know 100% that is is a LAW that you are not supposed to cross a solid white line yet, people do it every single day. Like you said before... people do whatever they want. Wild West style. Who's to blame them? It's not like there is any active enforcement of the road rules anyway


----------



## Gilligan

Crossing the white line to pass a left-tuning car on its right side is legal.


----------



## MiddleGround

Gilligan said:


> Crossing the white line to pass a left-tuning car on its right side is legal.



Solid white line? I think you are talking about a temporary passing lane that is painted into the shoulder area which would have broken white lines for entry and exit.

SOLID white lines are a no-no anytime.


----------



## Gilligan

MiddleGround said:


> Solid white line? I think you are talking about a temporary passing lane that is painted into the shoulder area which would have broken white lines for entry and exit.
> 
> SOLID white lines are a no-no anytime.


Nope..not any more.

http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2017RS/bills/hb/hb1456T.pdf


----------



## MiddleGround

Gilligan said:


> Nope..not any more.
> 
> http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2017RS/bills/hb/hb1456T.pdf



Consider me informed! Thanks for the literature Gilligan


----------



## BernieP

Gilligan said:


> Crossing the white line to pass a left-tuning car on its right side is legal.


even when that white line marks the "sidewalk" ?
So what you are saying is pedestrians and bike riders should not used the lanes marked for their use because people might need to pass on the right in their vehicle?
Does this also apply to passing vehicles who are not turning but doing the speed limit
or passing vehicles who are stopped with their hand turn signal flashing?


----------



## Goldenhawk

MiddleGround said:


> You keep trying to justify doing it the WRONG way with false logic.


You keep calling it the "wrong" way without any justification other than your own opinion.


----------



## Gilligan

BernieP said:


> even when that white line marks the "sidewalk" ?
> So what you are saying is pedestrians and bike riders should not used the lanes marked for their use because people might need to pass on the right in their vehicle?
> Does this also apply to passing vehicles who are not turning but doing the speed limit
> or passing vehicles who are stopped with their hand turn signal flashing?


So many straw men and here I forgot my matches.    Just read the new law.


----------



## glhs837

> On a highway* with unobstructed pavement* not occupied by parked 2 vehicles and wide enough for two or more lines of vehicles moving lawfully in the same 3 direction as the overtaking vehicle; or






> Subject to the requirements of subsection (b) of this section, the driver of a 17 vehicle may overtake and pass to the right of another vehicle *only: 18 (1) If the overtaken vehicle is making or about to make a left turn;*





> The driver of a vehicle may overtake and pass another vehicle to the right *only  if it is safe to do so.*





> THE DRIVER OF A VEHICLE MAY MAKE THE MOVEMENT 13 DESCRIBED UNDER SUBSECTIONS (A) AND (B) OF THIS SECTION BY DRIVING 14 OUTSIDE THE MARKED LANE ONTO THE SHOULDER TO OVERTAKE AND PASS A 15 VEHICLE THAT IS MAKING OR ABOUT TO MAKE A LEFT TURN* IF THE DRIVER CAN DO 16 SO WITHOUT LEAVING THE PAVED SURFACE.*


----------



## Goldenhawk

BernieP said:


> Does this also apply to passing vehicles who are not turning but doing the speed limit or passing vehicles who are stopped with their hand turn signal flashing?


It would help to read the law. "The driver of a vehicle may make the movement described in subsections (A) and (B) of this section by driving outside the marked lane onto the shoulder to overtake and pass a vehicle that is making or about to make a left turn if the driver can do so without leaving the paved surface." "(a) May overtake and pass to the right of another vehicle only: (1) if the overtaken vehicle is making or about to make a left turn; (2) ... only if it is safe to do so."

Both your questions are clearly answered. And the "safe to do so" clause would prohibit unsafe actions around pedestrians or bicycles.


----------



## Goldenhawk

It helps to remember that many of us learned to drive in some other state, many years ago, and under the instruction of people who learned to drive many decades ago. There are a lot of opinions about "the right way" that are not supported or required by current laws in this state.


----------



## Gilligan

Ahhh...the smell of burning straw always makes me smile.


----------



## GWguy

BernieP said:


> Isn't there a rule that you should not switch lanes 200 feet from an intersection?


I thought it was 100', but regardless, yes, there is a zone of "no lane change approaching an intersection".  Former member APS reminded us a few times.  Sometimes you will see the lane markers change from dashed to solid near the intersection, but I haven't seen that around here.


----------



## GWguy

MiddleGround said:


> Consider me informed! Thanks for the literature Gilligan


And no dig at you, but this is a partial reason why we have these "discussions".  We each have a set of "known facts", based on prior rules and laws, or the way we were instructed, which may or may not be accurate.


----------



## MiddleGround

Goldenhawk said:


> You keep calling it the "wrong" way without any justification other than your own opinion.



I call it WRONG because you are saying it is perfectly reasonable to drive on the LEFT side of the road. In what way is that EVER correct in the US??? At what point does common sense kick in? After you get T-boned???


----------



## MiddleGround

Goldenhawk said:


> It helps to remember that many of us learned to drive in some other state, many years ago, and under the instruction of people who learned to drive many decades ago. There are a lot of opinions about "the right way" that are not supported or required by current laws in this state.



As far as I know... EVERY state teaches you to drive on the RIGHT side of the roadway. Was your driver's license issued in London?


----------



## MiddleGround

GWguy said:


> And no dig at you, but this is a partial reason why we have these "discussions".  We each have a set of "known facts", based on prior rules and laws, or the way we were instructed, which may or may not be accurate.



Agreed. My issues come when the discussions are held to the point where, even in the face of literature that back up what you are saying, people still refuse to acknowledge that they may be wrong like it is some kind of scarlet letter.


----------



## Goldenhawk

MiddleGround said:


> As far as I know... EVERY state teaches you to drive on the RIGHT side of the roadway. Was your driver's license issued in London?


Personal attacks are unnecessary.


----------



## Goldenhawk

MiddleGround said:


> I call it WRONG because you are saying it is perfectly reasonable to drive on the LEFT side of the road. In what way is that EVER correct in the US??? At what point does common sense kick in? After you get T-boned???


The same exact point can be made about crossing to the left of other vehicles when using a traffic-light-controlled intersection, yet I don't think you're making an argument that THAT is wrong, are you?

You haven't yet acknowleged the concept that some states IN THE USA actually do have laws that require hugging to the left when using a median crossover. So your personal sense of "always stay to the right" may not be accurate.


----------



## MiddleGround

Goldenhawk said:


> The same exact point can be made about crossing to the left of other vehicles when using a traffic-light-controlled intersection, yet I don't think you're making an argument that THAT is wrong, are you?



What does this even mean? I need more of an explanation because this does not only make no sense... it also has no bearing on the conversation at hand.



> I suppose you missed the concept that some states IN THE USA actually do have laws that require hugging to the left when using a median crossover. So your personal sense of "always right" is flawed.



Links? Examples?? I have driven in at least half of the states in this country and have NEVER seen an instance of having to "


----------



## Goldenhawk

GWguy said:


> I thought it was 100', but regardless, yes, there is a zone of "no lane change approaching an intersection".  Former member APS reminded us a few times.  Sometimes you will see the lane markers change from dashed to solid near the intersection, but I haven't seen that around here.


Maybe actually getting some facts on the table would help. 

The Maryland Driver's Handbook 


			http://www.mva.maryland.gov/_resources/docs/DL-002.pdf
		

says "You should avoid drifting across lane lines and making lane changes within an intersection." First of all, the Handbook is not a legal document, and you cannot be charged with violating the Handbook; you can only be charged with violating the law itself. (You could be charged with doing something unsafe, but that's a separate aspect of the law.) Second, even if the Handbook were legally binding (which it's not), "avoid" is not the same as "may not" or "shall not".

From TrafficSchoolOnline.com, "Lots of drivers don't change lanes while driving in the middle of the intersection because they believe it is against the law. Even though this is good practice, as changing lanes mid-intersection can be dangerous, a lot of states don't consider it an unlawful act. Still, some states, like Ohio, do consider it illegal."

As an example, Virginia marks most intersections with solid white lines approaching the signal, but Maryland typically does not. Naturally, in any state you must obey these lane markings where they do exist.

Note also that nothing in the Driver's Handbook OR the law says how to use a median crossover intersection.

You may also be surprised that changing lanes without using a turn signal is NOT illegal in Maryland, although in 2009 an attempt to make it illegal was attempted and failed in the state legislature.


			http://voices.washingtonpost.com/rawfisher/2009/02/that_guy_didnt_even_signal_act.html
		

You are, however, required to signal at least 100 ft before TURNING at an intersection.








						2010 Maryland Code ::  TRANSPORTATION ::  TITLE 21 - VEHICLE LAWS - RULES OF THE ROAD ::  Subtitle 6 - Turning and Starting; Signals on Stopping, Turning, and Starting ::  Section 21-604 - Turning, slowing, and stopping movements; required signals.
					






					law.justia.com
				




If you disagree, feel free to quote "chapter and verse" of the MD Transportation Code to support your opinion. I suggest the Justia.com website as the most useful. I've searched extensively; I always do before entering into these discussions. I'd love to know if I'm wrong based upon the law itself. But your personal opinion or logic will not sway my trust in the law's specifics, because the law is what can convict me, not your opinion.


----------



## Goldenhawk

MiddleGround said:


> Links? Examples?? I have driven in at least half of the states in this country ...


I gave an example above of the Virginia code.


----------



## Goldenhawk

MiddleGround said:


> What does this even mean? I need more of an explanation because this does not only make no sense... it also has no bearing on the conversation at hand.


You have already stated that it's okay to cross to the left of oncoming traffic at a signal-controlled-intersection. Given this, you already have allowed that "driving on the right side" is not appropriate 100% of the time. Therefore, you personally drive to the left multiple times a day.

This point has already been made above more than a few times in this discussion by several other people.

A median crossover is just another intersection, but without a signal and usually without lines marking where to stay. Notably, quite a few controlled intersections do NOT have lines indicating where to cross, but everyone still stays to the left in those controlled intersections even without lines to so instruct them. Therefore, for many people (other than you obviously) there is a habit pattern and an expectation that staying to the left of an opposing vehicle is the right way to drive in an intersection, whether or not a traffic signal exists. I get it, you don't agree. But you should recognize that there is precedent for driving "on the left" that you encounter every single day.

This will probably blow your mind:





						NCDOT: Diverging Diamond Interchanges
					

N.C. Department of Transportation's information about why diverging diamond interchanges on highways help safely move motorists in high traffic areas




					www.ncdot.gov
				



In these intersections, you MUST drive on the left hand side of the road for a few hundred feet. I've been through them; they work great but can be even more confusing than traffic circles until you get used to them.


----------



## Goldenhawk

MiddleGround said:


> Agreed. My issues come when the discussions are held to the point where, even in the face of literature that back up what you are saying, people still refuse to acknowledge that they may be wrong like it is some kind of scarlet letter.


I've changed my mind quickly when presented with data or law showing I'm wrong. I'll cite a couple instances on these forums, specifically related to traffic laws.

Much to my personal embarrassment in retrospect, once I got out of my car and chewed out a driver who blocked the shoulder and wouldn't let me pass him coming north on Rt 5 approaching Great Mills. I firmly believed it was allowed by law, and he was keeping me from getting my kids to football in time. In retrospect I was wrong, very wrong. I learned why it was a bad idea when my wife's car was hit by someone else doing it. About a year later, I also discovered the truth about the law when on this very forum the argument came up, and in my search for "chapter and verse" why it was right, I discovered that it was in fact forbidden by state law. I promptly changed my tune and now try to help others understand the actual facts of the law in Maryland. 

Same thing with passing on the shoulder, which was already legal in some other states. Until the law was changed in 2017, I was wrong in asserting it was allowable in Maryland, and when I found I was wrong, I admitted it and changed what I tell others. And I had to change my tune again when it became legal in 2017; now I chime in as needed to spread the news that it is in fact legal now.

So I'd be happy to change my mind as soon as you can demonstrate why I'm wrong with something other than your personal opinion.


----------



## MiddleGround

Goldenhawk said:


> You have already stated that it's okay to cross to the left of oncoming traffic at a signal-controlled-intersection.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Huh? Where did I ever say this? Why would anyone go head on into oncoming traffic.... on purpose??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Given this, you already have allowed that "driving on the right side" is not appropriate 100% of the time. Therefore, you personally drive to the left multiple times a day.
> 
> This point has already been made above more than a few times in this discussion by several other people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See above response...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A median crossover is just another intersection...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. A median is a median. It is not an intersection.
> 
> If the county was smart enough to paint a solid yellow line down the middle of the median... would you still be on the left side? (Which..by the way... then places you head-on with traffic coming from across the road)
> 
> This is far from rocket science and solely in the common sense category. I just do not see how you can think to dispute this
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## MiddleGround

Goldenhawk said:


> So I'd be happy to change my mind as soon as you can demonstrate why I'm wrong with something other than your personal opinion.



 Sure! as soon as you answer my request from pages ago for a source for your 'opinion'

EDIT: I'll man up. Here ya' go!

https://www.wmbfnews.com/story/3681...roper-way-to-turn-left-at-a-median-crossover/


----------



## Goldenhawk

MiddleGround said:


> Sure! as soon as you answer my request from pages ago for a source for your 'opinion'
> 
> EDIT: I'll man up. Here ya' go!
> 
> https://www.wmbfnews.com/story/3681...roper-way-to-turn-left-at-a-median-crossover/


Thanks for sharing how it should be done in South Carolina, but that is irrelevant to the law in Maryland.


----------



## MiddleGround

Goldenhawk said:


> Thanks for sharing how it should be done in South Carolina, but that is irrelevant to the law in Maryland.



I tried to get as close to the NORTH CAROLINA example that you referenced above


----------



## Goldenhawk

MiddleGround said:


> Sure! as soon as you answer my request from pages ago for a source for your 'opinion'


Thanks for the snark. You're seeming rather defensive and angry here. 

I think I've extensively sourced my "opinion," with plenty of quotes from the Maryland legal code, Maryland Driver's Handbook, multiple websites related to Maryland driving code and practices, and so forth. I trust you'll actually visit those websites and read up. Until you do, I think further discussion with you seems to be fruitless.


----------



## glhs837

IIRC, we have searched the MD code, chapter and verse, and it's simply not there.


----------



## MiddleGround

Goldenhawk said:


> Thanks for the snark. You're seeming rather defensive and angry here.



Haha... Snark response to snark and called out for snark. Can't make this stuff up!



> I think I've extensively sourced my "opinion," with plenty of quotes from the Maryland legal code, Maryland Driver's Handbook, multiple websites related to Maryland driving code and practices, and so forth.



Ummmm..... where exactly did you post up the examples from laws/handbooks of Maryland drivers entering medians on the left being the law? I missed those....

Like I said many times in the past.... ANYTHING to not have to admit being just plain wrong!


----------



## Goldenhawk

It's worth noting that our legal system is fundamentally founded on the principle that all things are permitted except when explicitly prohibited. Our law is never written such that you can only do what is specifically allowed; that is how the law works in dictatorial states. But in America and most democracies, things are understood to be allowed unless the law forbids them. 





						Nulla poena sine lege - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




The MD transportation law does state that traffic control devices (which explicitly includes painted lines and signs) must be followed. It does not, however, specify how a crossover must be used.

With this in mind, except in cases where there are lines or signs or traffic lights or curbs, it is factually incorrect to use the words "right" or "wrong" in reference to a particular (preferred) methodology. One may pontificate endlessly about "better", and such a dialog may be very useful, but calling someone else "wrong" is evidence that legal principles and the specifics of the applicable laws are not understood by the speaker.

With this background, it is unsurprising why the police do not write tickets for things some people are convinced are "wrong". The police cannot charge someone with a violation where no law exists. I'm sure that's disappointing to some people, but it's how our legal system works, and we should all be thankful that's the case, even when we're frustrated that "there oughta be a law" in some instance.


----------



## PeoplesElbow

Apparently in Texas how you are supposed to do a crossover depends on the width of the median.  

https://texashillcountry.com/texas-forgotten-traffic-laws/


----------



## Goldenhawk

PeoplesElbow said:


> Apparently in Texas how you are supposed to do a crossover depends on the width of the median.


That makes perfect sense.  Great find!

I do notice that in MD, wherever the crossover is wider than a couple vehicle lengths, there is a solid yellow line painted in its middle, and usually stop bars at each end. By law a yellow line must be kept to the vehicle's left side, so this is an unambigous "traffic control device" indicating the driver must remain to the right side on those wider median crossings. For example, in Charlotte Hall at the Mechanicsville Rd intersection, this crossover:





But just a couple hundred yards north at Lockes Hill Rd, a narrower crossover has no line markings.


----------



## SamSpade

PeoplesElbow said:


> Apparently in Texas how you are supposed to do a crossover depends on the width of the median.
> 
> https://texashillcountry.com/texas-forgotten-traffic-laws/


Yes! I was going to mention this the other day,  but I figured at this point - what's the point?


----------



## Goldenhawk

By the way, the Texas illustration above is explicitly covered in its state law, so it is not just their driver handbook: CHAPTER 545. OPERATION AND MOVEMENT OF VEHICLES section (2) (c) "On a street or roadway designated for two-way traffic, the operator turning left shall, to the extent practicable, turn in the portion of the intersection to the left of the center of the intersection".

“Shall,” not “may.”

Given both our military turnover and the population size of Texas, it is certain that our area is home to many people trained to drive in Texas who KNOW that hugging the left is legally required in some places. So trying to force them to follow something different, especially when MD law does not explicitly require it, is Quixotic at best.

If nothing else, knowing that the situation varies from place to place, and that they are not breaking any specific law, should lower everyone’s blood pressure and stress level. There’s no need to flip off other drivers or scream at them; just relax and go with the flow, drive graciously, and be careful enough to not hit anyone.


----------



## BernieP

GWguy said:


> I thought it was 100', but regardless, yes, there is a zone of "no lane change approaching an intersection".  Former member APS reminded us a few times.  Sometimes you will see the lane markers change from dashed to solid near the intersection, but I haven't seen that around here.


200, 100, nobody seems to care.

I realized on my drive in today that people around these here parts drive with their head firmly in their ass.
They make up the rules to go along.  For instance, they will get in the "right turn lane" on 235 maybe a mile before they are turning right.
But when it comes to left turns, they brake, then ever so slowly move to the lane, usually crossing in on the solid while line.
They don't stop on red, but won't move on green.
It's brake first, turn signal (maybe) last.
Alien rules of the road to me, guess I should take my MD driver's test.


----------

